Bill,
I have found the emphasis on increased complexity in anti-Darwinian
arguments tied to a denial of the possibility of regress or stasis. If I
have erroneously ascribed this view to you, I apologize.
Dave
On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 22:11:33 -0600 Bill Payne <bpayne15@juno.com> writes:
> Sorry, I don't follow at all what you are saying.
>
> Bill
>
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 11:59:29 -0700 "D. F. Siemens, Jr."
> <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> writes:
> >
> > On Sun, 6 Jan 2002 22:49:58 -0600 Bill Payne <bpayne15@juno.com>
> > writes:
> > in small part
> > >
> > > Without the concept of "molecules to man" (increasing
> > complexity),
> > > you
> > > cut the heart out of the theory.
> > >
> > > Bill
> > >
> ________________________________________________________________
> >
> > By adding this you cut out Sacculina and all of the tapeworms, as
>
> > well as the fact that bacteria continue to exist. This, too, is
> > proof by crooked definition.
> > Dave
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 08 2002 - 15:47:55 EST